I do know that you're suggesting that anyone that disagrees with your approach is probably of the same mentality as PETA, even suggesting that others would be inclined to engage in vandalism and arson. Why would I think for a moment that you would be one that would be somehow solely qualified or even level-headed in a conversation with him or anyone else? The fact is that you've displayed a propensity for hyperbole.

manuman, how can you presume to say the stuff you've said in your last 2 or 3 posts? How can you assure me of anything as to the actions of a third party? Because you've conversed with him for a few minutes? Lol, is he your brother or what?

You work with this guy every day or what? What exactly is your relationship to him that you could possibly expect to have any credibility in making such bold statements? How do you know what he'll react to and what he won't? How can you presume that anything direct that someone might say to him by way of letter or conversation would by default be nothing more than "ill-advised rhetoric?" You apparently have a high-minded vision of yourself and a low opinion of others and I'm still trying to figure out why.

Lol, and you know these things after having simply spoken to him? That's some amazing stuff.

I've got no use for anyone who would regularly drug wild animals for fun and profit. Apparently you've fallen for whatever he whispered to you during your supposedly insightful and intimate conversation. You may be star-struck by this character, but I am not. You attack, in a left-handed back-handed fashion, anyone that would purport to confront him in any way, painting him as logical and level-headed and his detractors as probable vandals and arsonists.

What is wrong with this picture, boys and girls?

Your obvious and intentional exaggeration is inconsonant with your claims of wisdom, experience, and knowledge in this matter. We're talking about a guy that is/was seriously suggesting shooting whitetails with darts full of dope while the cameras roll, for the bemusemant of the masses he supposedly hoped to salute and enrich with such "entertainment."

Once in a great while someone comes up with an idea so wildly stupid that he or she should have said stupid idea be redressed in plain Englsih. This is one of those times.

I am getting more amazed at each response. I have known people with the 'ability' to make mountains out of mole hills, but you get the distinction of being number 1! You have ,obviously , either very little grasp of logic and comprehension, because your replies are jaded with nonsensical ramblings that have zero base in any reality, or youhave your mind o set in one direction that you can't stay on task with any relevance at all.. You make my case for me as to why the emotional response never works,because you are making up your own preconceived imaginings as to what has and is taking place. I have had several convos, but no, I am not 'star struck', nor do I 'work with him every day'. Where you pull this nonsense out of your hat is beyond me! Your conclusions are about as sensible as your approach. I have attacked no one, only , through experience , have learned that your way of direct, antagonistic confrontation doesn't work with anyone! It does have the affect of spurring them on to be more determined than ever,and to drive a wedge so as to not have any credibilty with your opponent or with even those you would consider nonadversaries for that matter! Your insults and anger are evidence of your not being level headed or soberminded in this, and I suspect, other matters that you confront on a daily basis. I am a business owner, a father, husband, and currently dealing with a terminally ill lfather.All of these issuesrequire a great deal of patience,tact, people skills,open heart and open minded dealings with a lot of difficult people and circumstances. I don't bulldoze through people's lives,even when much more serious issues than this matter are at stake. I won't stoop to your level and insult you personally. The only observationsthat I have are inrelation to how you are handling yourself in this particular matter as evidenced in your tactics and how you are now attacking me. It speaks for itself.
I am not decieved, charmed or falling prey to any of Farbman's antics.I share your view of how illogical and damaging that this , potentially, has on the hunting tradition. If you had had the courtesy to actually listen to what I have said, you would know this, but I guess I have to reiterate it.I just do not subscribe to the chicken little, the sky is falling, over reaction , emotionally charged ,ramrodding approach. It does not, and will not work. If, I am not able to make any headway with him,and I already have, regardless of your denials, then I, as previously stated will systematically contact the sponsors and inform them of the backlash that this will have on them. I have already told DF that this is the case. You don't have to scream and threaten to get a strong message across.

Round and round and round we go! Isn't this fun?

[&:]

The next person that compares me to PETA, Greenpeace or Nazis, is really going to get an earful.

There is a BIG difference between being opposed and outspoken on an issue, and being a terrorist! You guys talk about diplomacy and talk and patience and mitigation... yet you insult anyone who does not agree with you?

Don't insult me because I hunt over bait... and don't call me a hypocrite because I use bait but oppose high fences. The people who make me sick, other than DF and his merry band, are the ones whodisrespect and insult other hunters just because they don't like how they hunt. If farbman and his buddies want to hunt high fence and and film and have a contest, so be it. They can do their thing... HOWEVER, when you decide you want to portray the big-money, sponsored competition as true hunting, and want to promote that elitist concept to grow our sport, well... it's just one more nit-picking thing that sticks in my crawl. One that REALLY cannot be stood for, else we will see the adverse effect on our already commercialized and elitist past-time. As it is, more and more hunting is going into those game-ranches. Another debate for another thread though........

Farbman is at least being responsive to SOME ofour criticism, I'll grant you that. But there is too much else wrong with his concept to accept it just because the drugs have been eliminated... for now. Generally I accept and adhere to the old saying you catch more flies with honey.... but some things in life should be arbitrarily and unilaterally opposed. Fine, you guys try the "Diplomatic" approach, but you can take politics as your example, don't expect not to get shafted by the guy with more money to throw at his campain.

Meanwhile those of us in the letter writting campaign will continue to keep that revenue stream dwindling.

Who knows, maybe, just maybe there is a way we as hunters could get this thing to come out as a somewhat acceptable concept. However, call me a pessimist, realist, idealist, or even azealot(BUT NOT A PETA, GREENY, OR NAZI), but I have little faith that a money-motivated, ego-driven, self-proclaimed savior, could ever swallow his pride and allow his "dream" to be changed(to be read as completly re-written).

I guess I'll relenquish my soap box now.

Who insulted you for baiting or called you a hypocrite?

I think that was ME that got insulted for "baiting".

lol....

Jeff

I have not labeled anyone as such. Whatwas said was said tongue in cheek, with a great deal of sarcasm. My exaggertaed response was to say that there 's more diplomacy needed as opposed to knee jerk emotional responses, and that is all. It was , maybe, better off left unsaid, since keyboards don't pick up on such aspects of communicating such as sarcasm. I apologize that you or anyone else took this as personally directed at you or anyone else. I am trying to stress the need for cool heads, and not to inflame the situation with angry responses, that won't accomplish anything other than push someone that has a great deal of determination into a higher mode of resilience--that's all. He professes to be doing this out of a 'pure' motive of wanting to promote hunting, which he feels is in decline(and there he is correct). If that is so, then when and if he sees that how much he has caused a great deal of consternation and resentment among his fellow hunters, my tactic is to turn this on him as to how that he is actually doing more harm than good, and that if he indeed cares about the hunting tradition, than he should be willing to reexamine, not only his format, but his total approach. If he is unwilling, then he is exposed for his disengenuous motives, or he has a change of heart. More difficult--yes! Impossible--no! Then , and only then will it be time to pull the plug via advertisers, as I have said several times. To get in his face won't work, and doing nothing won't work, and there's no guarantee that my approach will work--but, it beats the other 2 alternatives.

And they all lived happily ever after (hopefully).

The End

Manuman, you're telling people who are passionate about their sport to leave that passion on the sidelines when they respond or replyto something that could very easily ruin the very thing they're so passionately defending. Granted, we need to think things through before we respond, but to tell someone not to get angry about something as idiotic as the WHA and David Farbman's idea is ridiculous. We should be getting angry and we should be giving Farbman an earful. I feel that too few people are getting angry about itand simply accepting it as an inevitability, something we have no control over. Those people lack the passion Imentioned above.